"Liberal" congresswoman tells Tea Party to "go straight to hell"

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you left, unexplained, the dangling "it all depends" to explain how the electorate might be insane if it elected a scary Republican. No doubt it's just personally unique to me, but that made me laugh.

There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity

What would hard to the left on foreign policy be?

Pacifism.

What does hard to the left in immigration mean?

Amnesty.

Would insisting that States cannot implement immigration policies to help in the capture and deportation of illegals be hard left?

Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.

Would taxing the rich at even higher rates than the already higher progressive rates be hard left?

You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

Would raising taxes in a depression be hard left?

This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

Would spreading the wealth be hard left?

Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

Would insisting that the Constitution is lacking because it does not prescribe what the government can and must do for the people be hard left?

I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

Take out the individual mandate and there is no health care bill. The bill requires that hard left provision. Much of what has been proposed by Republicans in the last 20 or more years has been leftist. As I've said in this forum before, the Republican party today is about the same or even left of the JFK Democrats. The Democrat party since FDR has steadily pushed the so-called "center" to the left, the Republicans following to survive, so that both parties have accepted the drift away from the Consitution and toward the growth of Central power. The MSM even criticized Nixon for being an autocrat. And the Repubs have gone to the left of Nixon.

The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Yes, his two Supreme Court appointments do seem relatively like radicals.

Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above

Bush has acted as a lefty when he handed out dollars and bailed out private industry. Those are not conservative actions just because a Republican (see above) did them. Increasing the size of our debt to unsustainable amounts is not conservative. It is very liberal.

I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

Hard to the left of what? To the left of "real" conservatives? Or to the left of current mainstream Republicans that have shifted left for many years. So, are you admitting that "real" liberals are hard left?

I don't think there are that many "real liberals" out there. Certainly less than 20% of the population. Conservatives on the other hand get to enjoy much larger enrollment, which hides the reality that there are many sub-brands that at times really don't agree on much.

What favors Obama most in the general election is the nomination of another Republican who is Democrat light. If there is no significant difference between candidates, why change?

As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are.

Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals"

We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that.

I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity

Yeah, I suppose we all suffer from that condition from time to time. Like when we elect "scary" progressives.

Pacifism.

Is pacisfism actually a foreign policy? It seems more a state of mind. Certainly, nations that we consider hard left
such as the Soviet Union, et al were not pacifist.

Amnesty.

If amnesty is a hard left policy on immigration, then your saying that all those Republicans that you keep referring to in order to justify Obama are hard left even though you say they are not lefties.

Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.

It doesn't conflict with the Constitution. Various existing Federal laws do.

You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

"Even higher" tax rates than the already higher rates on the rich are defined as raising the existing rates the rich pay which are higher than the rates the non-rich pay. In the world of the possible, that is the "vector" as you put it in the direction of really high that "real lefties" want to go.

This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

I asked about raising taxes, not lowering them. I certainly did not say there should be no revenue. You do, in spite of your moderate centrism, go to extremes.

Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

If we are already spreading the wealth, if all tax systems spread the wealth, then it becomes a question of how much spreading is going on. When the spreading becomes a burden on wealth production, it is self-defeating. More often, individuals know how much of their wealth to spread and still remain productive, and to the degree of comfort that is desired, rather than government officials spreading other peoples wealth beyond the minimum of necessity to scary bounds in order to get votes. When it becomes government objective to spread the wealth of others, when that is seen as a role of government, rather than imposing taxes as necessary and proper to fulfill its Constitutional mandates, I think that is entering the domain of the hard left.

I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

Obama didn't use the exact word "lacking" but said as much when he lamented that the Constitutioin did not say what government could do for the people.

The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Models are not perfect. They can be a "vector" in the right direction. Most "conservatives" sorrow over Reagan's leftist misteps.

Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above

It is a relative condition when it is used by relativists. Those conservatives you anonymously cite as being radical are actually espousing adherence to the Constitution. If the Constitution is our true center, our foundation as a nation, divergence from the Constitution is radical, not adherence to it. The relativists want to establish the current radical status quo as the center. They have turned our system of governance upside down--top down instead of bottom up.

I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

It wasn't the Constitutional taxes for national defense that contributed to the debt. It was the existing and then expanding unconstutional programs that required more debt. Can politicians spend too much on what they are Constitutionally allowed? Of course. That's one of the reasons for elections. But when programs and agencies are created for which the electorate has no say or recourse, the Constitution can "vector" towards moot.

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

It is not a cop out to revert to what works. The cop out is to say the Constitution is yada yada yada with respect to our current situation when it was disregard of the Constitution that got us in this current situation. And it is worse than copping out to pile on more of the same crap that got us here--as you say, it is irresponsible. But responsibililty lays at the foot of Constitutional governance. Otherwise it is governance at the whim of the moment, by untried theory. And yes, it will take time to revert to our center. But the longer we wait to change the "vector" in that direction, the longer will take, if ever.

As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

Constitutional government is not ideological change. The ideological change has occured in distancing ourselves from the Constitution. Responsible government would be Constitutional governement. Government by whim of the moment is not responsible.

Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals"

Thomas Sowell's intellectuals would not subscribe to re-educating the ignorant on the fundamentals of the Constitution.

I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

And how, other than following the Constitution, do you see the Federal Government acting responsibly.

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

That you don't "buy it" is irrelevant. If you want to discourse on it, we might find some agreement.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

How does the consolidation of wealth and the influence of industry on our governments behavior today limit how free individuals really could be? Wealth has always been "consolidated" and our government has always been influenced by "industry." So have all governments. Great wealth was consolidated in the hands of a few when the Constitution was written. The Revolution, to a great degree was financed by the manipulations and even by the personal fortune of one of the richest Americans at the time, Robert Morris. Many of the founders were quite wealthy. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness the Constitution garanteed to individuals was not anti-wealth consolidation. Property and the right to it was one of, if not the most important, reason for the Revolution. The right to have it and dispose of it as wished. The Constitution and the form of government therein attempted to garantee individuals the freedom to pursue that which they were capable of, and even that which they weren't. But it didn't garantee the outcome. You have the right to fail. But there was no obligation on other individuals to rescue you from your failure. It is obvious that most do not have the ability, nor the desire to be filthy rich.

And material wealth does not simply exist. It has to be created. There have been extremely wealthy and powerful corporations in the past. What's considered the first major corporation, the British East India Company, was wealthier than the British Government and ruled India for 100 years. The so-called Robber Barrons in our history had great concentrated wealth and power. They also expanded American wealth and power. Some modern governments (i.e. Marxist) have attemped to create wealth in the form of jobs, income, economies, but haven't been good at it. Maybe it's in the genes. Maybe there is DNA for busines and DNA for politics. Wealth creators distribute wealth in ways that allow individuals in our Constitutional system to empower themselves. Government's redistribution of that wealth seems to nurture more dependence than independence. Our government is wealthier and more powerful than any corporation or industry. It has more influence on business than business does on it. Our system requires virtue as much as industriousness, and the lack of virtue in our politics is not fostered by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution and its form of government is weakened by lack of virtue. The freedom the Constitution garantees to individuals does not garantee equal outcomes, nor equal wealth, nor does it deny great wealth, nor does great wealth of a few deny others the right to pursue that of which they are capable. Most of us, in the "spectrum" of possibilites, do not have the "genes" to accomplish great things on the extremes of the spectrum. There are a few that can. They also are garanteed the right of that pursuit. If we are virtuous, we need not fear the rich . . . or the government. Without virtue, the latter is the most dangerous.

If the obstacle to the government of, by, and for the people is the consolidation of wealth and its influence, what is most curious, is the fear of the Tea Party. What consolidation of wealth does the Tea Party have? It's motivation is the restoration of that Constitutional government of, by, and for the people. And it strives against loss of individual freedom imposed not only by the power of money, but especially that imposed by the power of government.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence
the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be


"positive vision of freedom"...... individuals can only be really free if a nanny state government is providing their needs and directing their actions

I guess real freedom would be the "negative vision of freedom"...in lib speak

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How does the consolidation of wealth and the influence of industry on our governments behavior today limit how free individuals really could be? Wealth has always been "consolidated" and our government has always been influenced by "industry." So have all governments. Great wealth was consolidated in the hands of a few when the Constitution was written. The Revolution, to a great degree was financed by the manipulations and even by the personal fortune of one of the richest Americans at the time, Robert Morris. Many of the founders were quite wealthy. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness the Constitution garanteed to individuals was not anti-wealth consolidation. Property and the right to it was one of, if not the most important, reason for the Revolution. The right to have it and dispose of it as wished. The Constitution and the form of government therein attempted to garantee individuals the freedom to pursue that which they were capable of, and even that which they weren't. But it didn't garantee the outcome. You have the right to fail. But there was no obligation on other individuals to rescue you from your failure. It is obvious that most do not have the ability, nor the desire to be filthy rich.

And material wealth does not simply exist. It has to be created. There have been extremely wealthy and powerful corporations in the past. What's considered the first major corporation, the British East India Company, was wealthier than the British Government and ruled India for 100 years. The so-called Robber Barrons in our history had great concentrated wealth and power. They also expanded American wealth and power. Some modern governments (i.e. Marxist) have attemped to create wealth in the form of jobs, income, economies, but haven't been good at it. Maybe it's in the genes. Maybe there is DNA for busines and DNA for politics. Wealth creators distribute wealth in ways that allow individuals in our Constitutional system to empower themselves. Government's redistribution of that wealth seems to nurture more dependence than independence. Our government is wealthier and more powerful than any corporation or industry. It has more influence on business than business does on it. Our system requires virtue as much as industriousness, and the lack of virtue in our politics is not fostered by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution and its form of government is weakened by lack of virtue. The freedom the Constitution garantees to individuals does not garantee equal outcomes, nor equal wealth, nor does it deny great wealth, nor does great wealth of a few deny others the right to pursue that of which they are capable. Most of us, in the "spectrum" of possibilites, do not have the "genes" to accomplish great things on the extremes of the spectrum. There are a few that can. They also are garanteed the right of that pursuit. If we are virtuous, we need not fear the rich . . . or the government. Without virtue, the latter is the most dangerous.

If the obstacle to the government of, by, and for the people is the consolidation of wealth and its influence, what is most curious, is the fear of the Tea Party. What consolidation of wealth does the Tea Party have? It's motivation is the restoration of that Constitutional government of, by, and for the people. And it strives against loss of individual freedom imposed not only by the power of money, but especially that imposed by the power of government.

Sorry, I've been on the road a lot and focused on pithy responses.

Continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power. If the elected officials are overly influenced by the powerful rather than leading in the interests of their constituents - which is what we've seen by both parties - then the system will get out of whack...which it clearly is. Perhaps it's always been out of whack but it's not often you hear someone remark that if only it was left to the States we'd be rid of this issue. Same play...different venue.

Government may hold more net influence over business, but only as much as what influence government holds is largely a product of business in the first place. The relationship between regulators and lobbyists today is like that of matter and energy. It's just a succession of manipulators working to rig the game in their favor.

To this end I don't think the Tea Party influence on the Republican party is pushing reform, rather, they appear to be promoting destruction of historic institutions (SS: Perry=ponsi / Romney=institution) that are relied upon day to day (i.e. government is the problem). Absurdly rigid calls to minimize taxation (cutting taxes under a deficit is still spending mind you) and regulation during a time of large deficits and continued corporate abuse doesn't seem to be in line with what the people want...quite simply, I just think people want an effective and responsible Federal government...not the removal of government. People want an environment where business can grow, but not one where businesses are free to pollute and strong arm the consumer in the name of freedom.

We've entered a period where wealth isn't just being created (to be distributed)... increasingly it is being siphoned off and concentrated through an economy driven by speculation which favors the wealthy. The recent numbers on poverty right here at home are a stark reminder.

Wealth doesn't just trickle down (voodoo economics), those on the lower rungs of the ladder have to be able to reach for it. Do we rely on individual states alone to provide for education or infrastructure when the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed to compete in a global marketplace?

Perhaps it's precisely because the Federal Government has overstepped it's strict Constitutional mandate that has allowed us to become what we have. The most powerful nation in the world and one also with substantial problems.

So much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from or does everyone need to be "reeducated"? That sounds like progressive thinking to me...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Sorry, I've been on the road a lot and focused on pithy responses.

Continued consolidation of wealth drives more consolidation of power.

How much more power do the wealthy have now than in the past? Isn't there a point of diminishing returns of power when you reach a certain level of wealth?

If the elected officials are overly influenced by the powerful rather than leading in the interests of their constituents - which is what we've seen by both parties - then the system will get out of whack...which it clearly is. Perhaps it's always been out of whack but it's not often you hear someone remark that if only it was left to the States we'd be rid of this issue. Same play...different venue.

If elected officials are overly influenced it's because they are corrupt, it's not because the sytem is "out of whack." That the system is "out of whack" is not because of influence, but because it has been, to a great degree, abandoned. As I said above, our Constitutional system, as do most others, requires virtue. Not only do "officials" lack virtue when they are "overly influenced," but they are corrupt when they subvert the Constitution--the law by which they are granted authority. And the corruption of influence far more easily reaches ALL when it reaches us through an overly powerful Central Government rather than having to go through 50 sovereign States where it may well not be the same play.

Government may hold more net influence over business, but only as much as what influence government holds is largely a product of business in the first place.

Were that it were so. The Federal govt. has, through its false "interpretations" of the Constitution, garnered the power to dictate to business in ways never intended and ways that are not a product of business, but of ideology.

The relationship between regulators and lobbyists today is like that of
matter and energy. It's just a succession of manipulators working to rig the game in their favor.

Always was and will be. Virtue and Constitutional governance will not belay this process, nor will unconstitutional Centralized governance which, actually, makes this corruption more far reaching and effective.

To this end I don't think the Tea Party influence on the Republican party is pushing reform, rather, they appear to be promoting destruction of historic institutions (SS: Perry=ponsi / Romney=institution) that are relied upon day to day (i.e. government is the problem). Absurdly rigid calls to minimize taxation (cutting taxes under a deficit is still spending mind you) and regulation during a time of large deficits and continued corporate abuse doesn't seem to be in line with what the people want...quite simply, I just think people want an effective and responsible Federal government...not the removal of government. People want an environment where business can grow, but not one where businesses are free to pollute and strong arm the consumer in the name of freedom.


The Tea Party does want to reform our unconstitutional mode and devolve power back to the States and the people. I don't know of a Tea Party push to "destroy" Social Security. Reforming it is not destroying it. Those who have it now will have it. For the rest, if it is not reformed to a self-sustaining insurance program, it will self-destruct under its own impossible weight. Tea Partiers are not against effective and responsible Federal govt. They believe it is most effectively responsible when it acts within its granted powers, and that it is illegally irresponsible when it governs outside those powers. That is not destructive or radical, it is responsible and legal. All this blather about deficits and taxes to pay for them is giving power to illegal confiscation to pay for illegal debts. An excuse for the expansion of government thievery. And the notion that only the Federal govt. can stop pollution is absurd. It is the Federal govt. that is strong-arming the consumer with its illegal regulations and mandates (e.g. health care mandate).

We've entered a period where wealth isn't just being created (to be distributed)... increasingly it is being siphoned off and concentrated through an economy driven by speculation which favors the wealthy. The recent numbers on poverty right here at home are a stark reminder.


The Federal govt. has been an intrinsic part of this mix with its regulations and mandates. It certainly has fostered greater numbers on poverty with those regs and mandates.

Wealth doesn't just trickle down (voodoo economics), those on the lower rungs of the ladder have to be able to reach for it.

Reaching for it and creating it are not the same. It must be created before it can be reached for, you can't reach for something that doesn't exist. How you reach for it depends on you and your ability. Most are able to get a job within a wealth structure, which redistributes some of that wealth. Some can create collateral entities that tap into that wealth structure. These create needs for infrastructure, expansion of services--more gas stations, food marts, housing, etc. The lower rungs generally not only have the ability to "reach for it," but are a necessary adjunct to the process.

Do we rely on individual states alone to provide for education or infrastructure when the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed to compete in a global marketplace?

The individual States provide for 90 percent of the cost of education. The portion that the Federal govt. provides is not for education as much as it is for the opportunity to mandate and regulate. The States, without the Central interference, could create a more diverse array of systems that could influence each other. If the idea that "the talent and resources of the entire nation need to be harnessed" by a Central power is not frightening, it is certainly restrictive. The "marketplace" needs to be unleashed, for good or ill, to most effectively create and distribute wealth.


Perhaps it's precisely because the Federal Government has overstepped it's strict Constitutional mandate that has allowed us to become what we have. The most powerful nation in the world and one also with substantial problems.

We were well on the way to becoming the most powerful nation before the Constitution was corrupted. It is not "precisely" because of that corruption, but because the Constitution assured the individual freedom to create that power.


So much of how we live today the general public has accepted as the norm. Has this not become part of the fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatism is woven from or does everyone need to be "reeducated"? That sounds like progressive thinking to me...

-spence

I thought that so much of how we live today was a system "out of whack" which is not the "fabric of mundane knowledge that conservatlsm is woven from." Education is not outside the thought of conservatism. Where did you get such an idea?

[scottw]

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the Constitution

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

I have no idea why you keep mentioning the Constitution

Maybe I have Constitution Tourrettes.

On the other hand, I have this stubborn idea that governments to be "official," to be recognized by its citizens, need a plan, a set of principles by which they will function. Government by osmosis or whim, by spur of the moment confection, on the run, or with the runs, may have appeal to some, but such forms just don't seem "fair" or right or even workable to me. In my backward view, I don't understand how giving a few men with agendas carte blanche to decide what is "responsible" will create legislation suitable to a diverse population of free individuals. What is the principle behind respecting one man's idea of responsible versus that of another. The Constitution does give a detailed definition of powers within the government and the ruling procedures work regardless of personal agendas. It limits the "governers" to certain duties and powers which protect us individuals from aspiring dictators or public moods and trends of the moment. It protects us from the tyranny of the majority. It is a system of limited government, not a codex of law, so is not dependant on the advancement of time and technology. That is, it is not subject to being dated--old, worn out, not relevant to "today." It is not living, breathing. If it were, it would be subject to the limit of time and death. No one has come up with a better, more relevant to today plan, or one that has worked as well or better,so I keep mentioning it.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Maybe I have Constitution Tourrettes.

maybe....seems that many today view the Constitution in much the same way that a criminal views the law(s)....